Soviet Social Policy in Comparative Perspective
| Date | 01 January 1981 |
| Published date | 01 January 1981 |
| DOI | 10.1177/019251218100200106 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
73
SOVIET
SOCIAL
POLICY
IN
COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE
KLAUS
VON
BEYME
A
comparative
analysis
of
Soviet
social
policy
must
consistently
take
account
of
the
fact
that
the
very
term
"social
policy"
has
at
least
a
slightly
different
meaning
in
every
country
that
admits
to
having
such
a
policy.
Not
surprisingly,
greater
distinctions
are
to
be
found
between
socialist
and
market
economies
than
among
countries
adhering
to
similar
political
views.
Furthermore,
it
is
difficult
to
measure
the
extent,
fairness,
and
effectiveness
of
social
programs
against
various
backgrounds
of
public
and
private
resources,
employment
practices,
taxation
methods,
and
government
accounting
pro-
cedures.
This
study
illustrates
ways
in
which
these
factors
account
for
problems
in
evaluating
Soviet
programs
in
areas
of
social
policy.
At
the
same
time,
discrepancies
in
theory
and
practice
are
examined
in
practical
detail
to
provide
information
on
the
real—or
experienced-value
of
the
policies
adopted
in
different
countries.
In
Western
democracies,
there
is
a
wide
range
of
meanings
attached
to
the
terms
&dquo;social
policy,&dquo;
&dquo;social
security,&dquo;
and
&dquo;social
welfare.&dquo;
Concerning
the
latter,
even
British
and
American
concepts
do
not
coincide.’
But
there
is
little
disagreement
in
the
Western
world
that
most
of
the
social
programs
of
the
state
can
be
discussed
according
to
an
elaborate
notion
of
&dquo;social
policy.&dquo;
In
the
Soviet
Union,
until
the
1970s,
the
idea
prevailed
that
the
socialist
state
is
by
definition
&dquo;social,&dquo;
that
no
special
science
of
&dquo;social
policy&dquo;
was
necessary,
and
that
social
policy
was
predominantly
coined
in
market
societies
to
describe
the
compensations
which
Western
states
try
to
offer
to
their
citizens
in
order
to
ease
the
hardships
of
capitalism.
Social
security,
therefore,
was
discussed
in
a
more
technical
and
administrative
sense
as
sotsia/’noe
obespechenie.
The
txrmi-
nological
insecurity
can
be
shown
even
in
translations:
A
recent
book
on
soisial’noe
obespechenie
has
been
translated
into
Germany
as
Sozialfürsorge,2
which
means
&dquo;public
assistance&dquo;
and
is
closer
to
the
older
notion
of
social
policy
as
random
charity
that
is
without
established
legal
claims.
If
we
compare
the
Russian
literature
on
social
policy
in
socialist
systems,
it
is
noteworthy
that
the
term
&dquo;social
policy&dquo;
came
into
Russian
usage
only
via
the
other
socialist
countries,
through
books
using
a
comparative
perspective.
One
of
the
first
books
bearing
the
title
Social
Policy
was
a
translation
from
Poland.3
To
avoid
premature
hypotheses
on
convergent
tendencies
between
socialist
and
capitalist
social
policy,
we
have
to
apply
two
methods
that
have
been
74
established
instruments
of
comparative
methods
since
The
Logics
of
John
Stuart
Mill:
the
method
of
agreement
and
the
method
of
difference.
The
most
important
differences
are
to
be
found
in
the
following
areas:
(1)
THE
NONEXISTENCE
OF
RESTRICTIONS
FOR
EGALITARIAN
SOCIAL
POLICY
IN
SOCIALIST
COUNTRIES
The
Leninist
concept
of
social
policy
deeply
distrusts
&dquo;incremental
policies&dquo;
identified
with
the
bourgeois
state.
The
idea
prevails
that
the
revolutionary
change
of
the
class
structure
has
avoided
certain
restrictions
for
comprehensive
social
security
as
they
exist
under
capitalist
conditions.
The
notion
of
&dquo;achievements&dquo;
(dostizheniya)
is
used
to
circumscribe
what
exists
virtually
in
socialism,
though
it
is
not
yet
fully
realized
in
the
different
socialist
states.
Galtung’s
notion
of
&dquo;structural
violence&dquo;
is
the
negative
expression
of
the
same
idea:
certain
systems
seem
to
have
better
conditions
to
develop
in
the
future.
On
the
face
of
it,
socialist
social
policy
has
no
fundamental
restrictions
to
overcome,
whereas
the
achievement
of
social
policy
in
market
societies
is
normally
the
product
of
wearisome
conflicts
with
powerful
veto
groups.
One
of
the
most
important
preconditions
in
all
the
systems
is
economic
growth
which,
in
the
first
postwar
years,
tended
to
be
higher
in
socialist
countries
than
in
capitalist
systems.4
In
spite
of
partially
lower
rates
of
economic
growth,
some
capitalist
countries
have
had
a
higher
increase
of
social
welfare
benefits:
the
FRG
increased
them
eight
times,
the
GDR
only
three
times.5
These
&dquo;achieve-
ments&dquo;
are
no
longer
denied
by
socialist
scholars
in
the
case
of the
United
States
and
West
Germany,6
but
the
explanation
for
this
increase
is
exclusively negative:
The
increasing
gravity
of
social
conflicts,
concessions
to
conserve
the
capitalist
system,
militarization
of
the
capitalist
states,
and
the
alleged
imitation
of
socialist
countries
are
given
as
the
reasons
for
this
development.
Usually
only
the
motivation,
not
the
performance,
of
the
Western
welfare
states
as
such
is
doubted
by
socialist
scholars.
In
spite
of
many
shortcomings
of
authoritarian
socialist
systems,
at
least
in
two
respects
there
are
indeed
fewer
restrictions
for
egalitarian
social
policy
under
socialist
conditions.
(a)
Some
of
the
disparities
are
less
developed
than
in
capitalist
countries.
Access
to
the
health
system,
to
homes
for the
elderly,
and
to
education
is
less
prestructured
by
social
class
inequalities
than
in
most
capitalist
societies.
There
is
no
class
division
in
hospitals,
despite
some
blatant
privileges
of
the
bureaucratic
elites.~
7
(b)
Class
division
in
living
is
less
developed,
if
we
do
not
count
certain
tendencies
of
segregation
between
the
slave
and
the
native
population
in
some
cities
of
Central
Asia,
and
if
we
neglect
the
&dquo;ghettos
of
the
political
elite&dquo;
which
existed
predominantly
in
the
Stalin
era.8
To continue reading
Request your trial